Justice for All

A letter in response to Jeffrey Toobin’s article (May 24, 2010)

Jeffrey Toobin is right that the Roberts Court pays lip service to judicial restraint, even as it invalidates laws and overturns prior judicial decisions (Comment, May 24th). He is also right that it would be equally hypocritical for liberals who applaud the Court’s invalidation of laws restricting abortion or habeas corpus to bemoan the Court’s judicial activism when it is ideologically out of step with their beliefs. But Toobin misleads when he writes that “neither side is as concerned with abstract concepts like activism and restraint as it is with winning.” Whether a judicial decision is right or wrong has nothing to do with whether it exhibits restraint or activism; it has to do with the identification and application of appropriate legal principles. The Court’s invalidation of nuanced plans for creating racial diversity in the Seattle and Louisville public schools ignored the principle of equality of educational opportunity. The Court’s invalidation of laws that restricted the ability of Guantánamo detainees to obtain a fair trial respected the principle that judicial checks on executive power are needed to prevent tyranny. These principles are neither liberal nor conservative. They are required by justice.